Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
October 1998
Cristina C. David
Arlene B. Inocencio
Francisco M. Largo
and
Ed L. Walag
PIDS-DENR
June 1998
Water in Metro Cebu: The Case for Policy and Institutional Reforms*
Introduction
Metro Cebu is the second largest urban center in the country, with a population of more
than 1.3 million people and covering 3 cities and 5 municipalities within 544 sq. km. of land area.1
It comprises almost half of the entire population of Cebu province, but only 14% of its land area.
About half of Metro Cebu’s population and land area are in Cebu City which has historically been
the commercial and service center of the Visayas and Northern Mindanao regions, as well as the
home base of the country’s major shipping companies. Outside Metro Manila, Metro Cebu has
the highest concentration of major hospital, educational, and medical training services.
Over the past decade, Metro Cebu has been drawing substantial industrial investments,
attracted by the rapid infrastructure (air, port, and land transport facilities) development, presence
of trainable manpower, strong trade and services network, and adequate living amenities. Metro
Cebu currently accounts for 70% of Central Visaya’s industrial output; the Mactan Export
Processing Zone alone with its 101 firms and over 38,000 employees contributes over 60% of its
total exports.
Tourism has also become a major source of growth of its economy, as Metro Cebu has
become the top destination of foreign tourists. Aside from its historical significance and natural
*
Paper presented at the workshop on “Urban Water Issues in Metro Cebu”, Plenary Hall,
Ramon Aboitiz Foundation, Inc., Cebu City, June 17, 1998.
**
Research Fellows, Senior Instructor, Project Manager, Philippine Institute for
Development Studies, University of San Carlos, and Water Resources Center, respectively.
1
Included are Cebu City, Mandaue City, Lapu-Lapu City, Cordova, Talisay, Consolacion,
Liloan, and Compostela.
attractions, peace and order condition is relatively good, infrastructure is well-developed, and
modern shipping facilities provide access to other tourist destinations in nearby islands.
In contrast to the progressive overall economic development of Metro Cebu, the state of
its water resource management and quality of its water utility service are serious concerns of the
various sectors of the economy. 2 The watersheds surrounding Metro Cebu have long been
considered in a critical state. Access to piped water connection is limited. Groundwater pumping
is virtually unregulated, despite reported depletion of groundwater reserves and saline intrusion
of coastal aquifers. The lack of sewerage collection and treatment efforts, as well as weak
regulation of industrial effluents and non-point sources of water pollution have adversely affected
people’s health and quality of rivers, streams, and other water bodies.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the policy and institutional factors that may be
constraining the efficient, equitable, and sustainable management of water resource in Metro
Cebu. Because of certain unique characteristics of water (and related factors such as watersheds),
purely market mechanisms will fail to achieve an economically efficient, socially equitable, and
environmentally sustainable development, distribution, and use of water resources. First, both
surface and groundwater have public good characteristics. Excluding non-payers from its
consumption is difficult and costly. Even though overuse of ground or surface water may already
be raising cost of water withdrawal, the resulting cost increase would often be viewed as marginal,
especially by large users. Hence, market prices may not adequately reflect the diminishing
2
Indeed, a multi-stakeholder coalition called the Cebu Uniting for Sustainable Water
(CUSW) was formed to lobby for improvements in water resource management policy. Thus far,
this is the only such organized effort in the country, reflecting the serious nature of the problem
in Metro Cebu.
2
Second, environmental effects or externalities arising from the production and
consumption of water impose costs to society. At the production stage, the construction of dams
to harness surface water run-off may damage the ecosystem, dislocate affected population, and
threaten endangered species. Overpumping of groundwater resources will lead to salt water
intrusion, cause land subsidence, and raise cost of abstraction for future users. At the
consumption stage, negative externalities may arise from untreated domestic sewer and industrial
wastewater or effluents accompanying water use through the impact of water pollution on public
Finally, production and distribution of surface and groundwater are typically characterized
by strong economies of scale. Often, the operation of a centralized water distribution system may
The government, therefore, has a critical role in establishing an incentive, regulatory, and
institutional framework that will facilitate the achievement of water resource management
objectives. Failure to achieve these objectives may often be attributed to the a) lack of an
integrated, holistic approach in addressing the inherently interrelated issues of water supply
planning, and operation, demand management, pollution control, watershed and groundwater
allocating scarce water resources and controlling water pollution which have proven to be
inadequate; c) dominance and direct involvement of the public sector in water supply operation
although government operations are typically characterized by faulty incentive structure and lack
of effective competition; and finally d) a water pricing policy that does not recognize water as a
scarce (and not a free) resource nor account for the pervasive externalities associated with
3
Water Supply Situation
Almost all freshwater used in Metro Cebu is derived from groundwater aquifers. The
government-owned Metro Cebu Water District (MCWD) abstracts about 110,000 cum/d through
its 81 wells in various parts of the service area.3 Its piped water distribution system serves only
about 23% of total households and a smaller proportion of the industrial and commercial and
establishments for an average of 18 hours per day. Household or domestic use accounts for
about 70% of the volume of water sold; whereas industrial, commercial and other users take up
The large majority of households, industrial, and commercial firms, therefore, have to rely
on private wells (self-supplied or through private waterworks) and private water vendors. Many
of those with MCWD connections also use own wells or vended water in conjunction with its
piped water, or invest in booster pumps, cisterns, and storage tanks to cope with the rationed
supply of MCWD water (Largo et al. 1998; Inocencio et al. 1998; Expertelligence 1997). Vended
water may be picked up from the source, frequently a neighbor with MCWD connection or
Except for the MCWD wells, there are no available information to estimate the rate of
groundwater pumping directly. Although industries, commercial establishments and other large
users of groundwater are required to register with the National Water Resource Board
(represented by MCWD in Metro Cebu), only a small fraction actually do so. As of 1997, the
total number of registered private wells is only 151, and these are dominated by residential
subdivisions (126) for domestic use (Table 1). The number of registered private wells for
industrial/commercial uses is only 16, 5 for irrigation, and 4 for fisheries. A recent inventory of
3
Only a small amount of water (1% of total) is derived from the Buhisan Dam which has
long been heavily silted.
4
wells by the Water Resource Center (WRC) in Mactan, which included individual household
wells, reported a total of more than 5000. Based on fragmented data, WRC also estimates that
for Metro Cebu, the total number of wells may be within the range of 20,000-25,000 (Walag
1996).
In the absence of any systematic data, total groundwater abstraction has been typically
estimated indirectly by deriving estimates of total water consumption for various uses. None of
the available estimates, however, include the use of groundwater for fishery, especially for prawn
farming in Talisay and Cordova, nor for agriculture primarily for the vegetables, cutflower, hog,
and poultry farms. Moreover, there is hardly any reliable basis for estimating consumption of
water for non-household uses. In most cases, industrial and commercial uses of water were
estimated quite crudely by multiplying a water intensity ratio per sq. meter to projected total
Interestingly, various estimates of groundwater abstraction since 1990 are within a narrow
range of 235,000 to 243,000 cum/d (CIADPS 1994; Haman 1991; Walag 1996). Based on a
more recent population census, different assumption on per capita water use and different method
for estimating non-household water use, our 1995 estimate of urban water consumption indicate
an even higher figure for groundwater abstraction ranging from a low of about 280,000 to a high
of 390,000 cum/d (see PIDS1 and PIDS2 rows in Table 3). Whichever estimate of groundwater
abstraction may be correct, however, it is clear that the Metro Cebu’s groundwater aquifer is
being rapidly depleted. Estimates of natural recharge rate, a measure of safe or sustainable
groundwater yield, vary from 130,000 to 160,000 cum/d, only about half of the estimated rates
of groundwater abstraction (CIADPS 1994; Haman 1991; Walag 1996; JICA 1998).
Consequently, saltwater has long intruded the coastal areas and pumping costs have increased as
5
The same estimate of total water consumption by use allows us to infer the relative
importance of private wells and water vendors together as sources of water (Table 2). Based on
PIDS1 low estimate of total water consumption, at least 75% of water consumption of both
households and other users seems to originate from non-MCWD sources. Although part of
vended water particularly those sold to households is actually MCWD water, the 75% may still
underestimate the true value because the estimated non-household water consumption is a
minimum one. More likely, the proportion of industrial and commercial water consumption
obtained through private wells and water vendors would be somewhere between 75% and 90%,
As early as the mid-1970s, the limited groundwater resources relative to water demand
of a rapidly growing Metro Cebu economy and the need to develop surface sources of water
supply have been recognized based on the studies conducted by the Kampsax-Kruger Lahmeyer
International (KKLI) and by the Cebu Consultants in the early 1980's. The Balamban River and
the Mananga River were identified as potential sources of surface water, and in the late 1970s
Camp Dresser and McKee already designed and prepared the tender documents for the
construction of the Lusaran Dam to create a catchment area for the Balamban River which can
supply 160,000 cum/d of water for Metro Cebu. However, the high cost of the project, together
with the poor economic conditions in the early 1980’s, prevented its implementation.
lower cost alternative. In the Phase I, an infiltration system is envisaged to increase the recharge
rate downstream and make use of the storage capacity of alluvial material in the Jaclupan Valley.
This project involves the construction of a diversion weir, sedimentation and infiltration facilities,
and a wellfield which can produce 33,000 cum/d of water, about three times higher than the
6
natural safe groundwater yield of about 10,000 cum/d. In the Phase II, an additional water supply
of 100,000 cum/d will be generated by building a 90 meter high dam upstream of the Mananga
Phase I project, a tunnel connecting the reservoir and a proposed treatment plant at Tisa, above
the ground concrete reservoir, and additional transmission and distribution pipe lines.
Up until 1997, MCWD production capacity has been increased primarily by exploiting
more groundwater resources and reducing the rate of non-revenue water through investments
under its “Program I.” Between 1986 and 1997, water production increased from about 79,000
up to 122,000 cum/d and the rate non-revenue water declined from 52% down to 38%. These
investments included the construction of a well-field north of Cebu at Compostela and as part of
“Program II”, the implementation of Phase I of the Mananga River project. These two projects,
however, have not yet been fully operational for a number of reasons.
Although the Compostela wellfield was completed way back in 1992, the local
government has continually refused to allow its operation. Fears have been strongly expressed
about possible adverse effects on the pumping yields of small wells within the area. These small
wells are used not only for domestic purposes but also for irrigation of vegetable farms, the main
source of livelihood of households residing within the vicinity. With the greater autonomy of local
governments under the Local Government Code and the apparent lack of clear guidelines or
mechanisms for resolving conflicts related to inter-LGU water transfers, nor about competing
intersectoral use of water, the Compostela wellfields remain non-operational, yielding no return
The Mananga Phase I project that was began in 1993 has not been fully completed up to
this time as the contractor is unable to procure and install the multi-layer sand filter over the
artificial recharge area with the remaining undisbursed funds of 5% of project cost. Apparently,
the cost of the specified sand is much higher than anticipated because it turned out to be
7
unavailable in the country and may have to be imported for local sand to or undergo costly
processing. Without the artificial recharge system, however, the safe yield of the aquifer will be
much lower and investments in pumping capacity, diversion weir, and other structures would have
been largely wasted. Nonetheless, the project began operation in late 1997 pumping below target
capacity, but at rates that are still unsustainable over the medium and long-term.
Efforts to develop surface sources of water supply are also being undertaken, but thus far
no project has materialized. In 1991, the feasibility study for the Mananga Phase II was
completed by the Electrowatt Engineering Services (EES) for possible funding by the Asian
Development Bank, but as the Mananga Phase I was still to be started in 1993, no action could
be taken. In the meantime, an unsolicited Build Operate Transfer (BOT) proposal for the
Mananga Phase II was accepted from the Johan Holdings Berhad in 1994, which simply adopted
the design set-out by the EES feasibility study. In 1996, another unsolicited BOT proposal was
received for the importation of treated water from the Inabanga River in Bohol through submarine
and overland pipelines between Inabanga in Bohol and Cordova in Mactan Islands.4 This
represents the Phase I of a Bohol-Cebu Water Supply Project involving the treatment of water
extracted downstream of the Inabanga River to provide 100,000 cum/d water flow to Cebu and
None of these proposals have been approved, however, in part because of the apparently
sold to MCWD.5 More importantly, these proposals required national government guarantees of
4
From the Alliance of Anglo-Philippines Holding Corporation, Brown and Root and Itocha
Corporation.
5
In fact, the proposed price of bulk water from the Mananga Phase II is substantially
higher that the per unit cost estimated by the Electrowatt study.
8
purchase which is not allowed under the unsolicited BOT category. Unlike the solicited BOT
proposals which are evaluated through an open competitive bidding procedure, unsolicited BOT
proposals are more like a negotiated contract, with a 60-day period is provided for anyone to
contest the proposal. Supposedly, unsolicited BOT proposals may be accepted only for projects
embodying innovative technologies or ideas, which strictly speaking does not apply to either of
In the case of the Bohol-Cebu Phase I proposal, concerns have been raised about the
potential political problems associated with inter-LGU transfer as experienced in the Compostela
case, as well as technical issues related to the reliability of water supply from the Inabanga River
during the dry season in the absence of an upstream reservoir which will be constructed only in
a Phase II project.
Future surface water supply expansion projects of MCWD are prioritized in the following
order: the Mananga Phase II, the 100-meter high dam along Balamban River in Lusaran to
produce an additional 160,000 cum/d of raw water, the Inabanga River Phase I, and the Inabanga
River Phase II which involves the construction of a 60-meter high dam upstream, together with
a mini-hydropower and additional water treatment plant for an additional 260,000 cum/d raw
In this section, alternative projections of demand and supply for urban water up to the
year 2020 are analyzed to put in perspective the policy, institutional, and regulatory reforms that
will be needed to achieve a more efficient, socially equitable, and sustainable water resource
9
Demand Projections
Table 3 presents the various water demand projections conducted since 1991. Our review
of the methodologies used in past studies suggests that projections of future water demand may
have been underestimated, particularly the estimates for the non-household uses of water. For
household demand, past studies assumed base year per capita consumption for the poor
households or “blighted” population to be way below (about 40 cum/capita) the average for the
rest of the households (about 180 cum/capita) based on the observed levels of water consumption.
In the latter case, the average per capita water consumption is based on observation from
households connected to MCWD, adjusted upwards to correct for suppressed demand arising
from water rationing. However, our study indicates that the much lower observed water
consumption of the poor compared to the others reflects not only the effect of differences in
income, but more importantly, the 5 to 10 times higher price typically paid by the poor who has
to depend largely on vended water (Largo et al. 1998). Theoretically, if the purpose of the
demand projection is to analyze its implications on water supply requirements, the appropriate
method is to estimate the demand relative to a common price across the households, the wide
Because of limited data and empirical analysis of demand relationships for non-household
uses of water, available projections of industrial, commercial, and other water demand are even
more problematic. Typically, these were estimated based on assumptions about water use per lot
area and projections of industrial and commercial lot area (Expertelligence 1997; CIADP 1994;).
In the more recent JICA Water Resource Master Plan Study (1998), no distinction across uses
was even made; and total water demand was projected on the basis of projected population
growth and arbitrarily high assumed per capita water consumption (355 cum/capita) which
10
To address the weaknesses of past projection, two alternative water demand projection
(PIDS1 and PIDS2) are also reported in Table 3. The main difference from past studies is the
much higher estimate of base year and projected water demand for non-household uses. Given
the limited data available to estimate non-household use of water and lack of theoretical basis and
crude nature of the estimates according to lot area, non-household water demand was estimated
similar the ratio in Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, and Singapore where the service coverage of the
water utility is 100% and to the average ratio generally reported worldwide especially at the early
stages of economic development (Renzetti 1992; Water Utilities Data Book 1997). A low
estimate (PIDS1) is also provided, assuming the ratio of industrial/commercial to total water
consumption of 30%, the ratio observed in developed countries where a relatively high water
price and appropriate sewer and effluent charges have reduced water consumption through
adoption of water saving technological processes, as well as recycling and reuse of water. Both
ratios are higher than those obtained in the other projections, e.g., 12-15% for CIADP, 26% for
Our projection of household demand for water is based on a higher projected population
growth rate than the Electrowatt study, but lower than those assumed in all the three other
studies. Moreover, instead of making separate demand projections for the poor and the rest of
the population, a relatively low rate of average per capita water consumption was applied for the
Overall, our projected water demand are generally higher than past projections; the low
estimates (PIDS1) are about 20% higher, while the high estimates (PIDS2) are as much as 60%
11
more than the earlier projections. It is interesting, however, that the 1998 JICA projections for
year 2015 and beyond are even higher that our low estimate shown in PIDS1.
In Table 4, the alternative demand projections are shown together with projections of net
water supply (i.e., net of assumed non-revenue water), the amount of water available for sale by
MWCD.6 By year 2000, it is assumed that the Mananga Phase I and Compostela wells will be
fully operational. The net supply figure for 2005 includes the water expected from the Mananga
Phase II and the Lusaran Dam, while the figure in brackets excludes the potential water supply
from the Lusaran Dam. By year 2010, water from the Phase I of the Cebu-Bohol water supply
project is added and by 2015, the Phase II of the project is assumed to be completed.
Although there are wide variations in the estimated net demand-supply gaps, it is clear that
groundwater mining will continue to worsen even with the successful operation of the Compostela
Wellfield, the Mananga Phase I, and the completion of Mananga Phase II early in the next century.
In fact, the “low” PIDS1 projection indicates that only with development of all the proposed
surface water supply expansion projects end of groundwater depletion be controlled in Metro
Cebu, at least up to 2025. Based on the highest estimate of safe or sustainable groundwater
extraction of 164,000 cum/day (JICA 1998), sustainable private groundwater extraction is only
about 52,000 cum/day. Indeed, if there are no efforts to conserve water and the future demand
for water is closer to the “high” PIDS2 projection, supply-expansion strategies alone will fail to
6
The rate of non-revenue water is assumed to decrease from 38% in 1995 down to 35%
in 2000, 30% in 2005, and 25% in 2010 and beyond.
12
Closing the Gap
together with efficiency improvements and surface water supply development on the supply side.
The key instrument for managing water demand is to institute an optimal water pricing policy, i.e.,
the price of water to users must reflect its full economic cost, including the direct supply or
financial cost of production and distribution, the opportunity cost of water, and the environmental
Demand function estimates for households and industrial and commercial firms do show
significant price responsiveness (Largo et al. 1998; Inocencio et al. 1998). In other words, the
scope for reducing the water demand-supply gap by raising water tariffs and imposing sewerage
charge and effluent tax is substantial. The current pricing policy structure fails to account for the
scarcity or opportunity cost of groundwater as raw water continues to be free for MCWD and
self-supplied households, industrial, commercial and other users. Neither does it consider the
environmental cost of domestic and industrial wastewater as no appropriate sewerage charges and
effluent taxes have been levied. Such undervaluation of water and related factors lead to a)
wasteful usage of water by final consumers and raw water by water utility firms (as evidenced by
the high rate of non-revenue water), b) misallocation of freshwater in favor of less valuable uses
(e.g., fishery and irrigation over urban use), c) worsening of water pollution problems, and d)
failure to invest in the necessary investments for water supply expansion in a timely manner.
Although the current water pricing policy of MCWD covers only the financial cost of
production and distribution (including the capital and operation and maintenance costs), it should
be noted that the structure of its water tariffs is relatively high in comparison with other water
districts in the country (Table 5). For water consumption below 30 cum/month, MCWD’s water
tariff is higher than most major cities with the exception of Baguio City and Metro Siquijor. At
13
higher consumption brackets, Metro Cebu has the highest water tariff at P
=32.26/cum. Indeed,
MCWD’s average water tariff is also among the highest among major ASEAN cities, next only
to Singapore, and about twice the average in the region (Table 6). In fact, MCWD’s water tariff
is the highest at consumption bracket above 30 cum/month. By contrast, with the privatization
of the MWSS, Metro Manila now has the lowest water charges among water districts in the
It should be noted that the scope for increasing efficiency of MCWD and operations
appear to be large and should be pursued vigorously, considering the relatively high water tariffs,
particularly for large-scale users, and the relatively high cost of surface water supply development.
For example, the rate of non-revenue water of MCWD is 38%, as compared to a 30% overall
average for developing countries and 10% for the more efficient water utility firms. The number
of employees per 1000 connections is a high 9.3 compared to 4.6 in Bangkok, and only 1.1 and
2.0 in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, respectively. In Metro Manila, the number of employees per
1000 connection has dropped from over 10 to 5.5, less than a year after the MWSS privatization.
The recent problems encountered in the operations of Compostela wells and completion of
Mananga Phase I have significantly reduced returns to those investments indicating the need to
improve the legal framework for effecting inter-LGU water transfers and upgrade institutional
capacity for implementing water supply expansion projects, in order to minimize losses in capital
investments.
Clearly, an optimal water pricing policy will mean higher average water charges as a raw
water charge will have to be imposed, together with sewerage charge, and effluent taxes.
Privatization of MCWD can be expected to lower the financial cost of operation, however, if
conducted in a transparent competitive manner and a competent regulatory office is put in place.
14
And improved water service will save final consumers the additional costs incurred by users in
It should be emphasized that optimal water pricing may be expected to improve the quality
of water service and the environment, without necessarily reducing the welfare of poor
households if this will lead to greater direct access to MCWD water. With the limited supply of
MCWD water, our survey showed that most poor households have to rely on vended water that
are typically 5 to 10 times more than the official price of MCWD water though many are actually
buying the same water from neighbors with connections (Table 7). Furthermore, Table 8 which
reports the average cost of water by income class shows the highly regressive nature of the actual
water cost structure despite the progressive character of the MCWD pricing structure. Hence,
imposing raw water and domestic sewer charges that facilitate the more efficient, equitable, and
sustainable management of urban water resources may actually lower the effective cost of water
to poor households, as they gain access to MCWD water that would still have a much lower price
Moreover, optimal water pricing need not threaten competitiveness of industrial and
commercial firms. There is widespread evidence in developed countries that higher water tariffs
and effluent taxes have reduced water consumption without impairing industrial growth in
developed countries (Jaffe et all. 1995). Firms responded by modifying processing and cooling
methods, and adopting water reusing and recycling practices. Potentials for water conservation
and use of water saving technologies for household use of water are also strong.
To promote a more efficient, equitable, and sustainable urban water resource management,
in Metro Cebu, the following policy and institutional reforms are called for:
15
1. Adoption of water (and its related components) pricing policy that covers the full
economic cost of urban water use, i.e., direct supply or financial cost of water production and
distribution; opportunity cost of water where there are competing users; and cost of externalities
users that should reflect the opportunity cost of water and/or environmental cost of water
extraction from surface or groundwater sources. The MCWD recently began collecting
presumably for reforestation. We argue, however, that this should be collected by the
government and levied on all users for as long as the additional cost of collection is less
than the additional revenue. The raw water charge should in principle, be ultimately high
self-supplied water users to cover the cost of its effective regulation and the necessary
d) The progressive character of the water tariff structure should be maintained for
the wide differences (2 to 3 times) in water tariffs between small and large users or
16
discourage groundwater pumping by commercial and industrial firms. Of course, large
water users may still be expected to use own wells because of economies of scale.
2. Government revenues from raw water charges, effluent taxes and sewerage fees should
be earmarked for water resource management-related activities. Whereas revenues from effluent
taxes and sewerage fees should finance the cost of environmental management, raw water
a) finance part of the direct supply cost of surface water development and
replenishment of groundwater;
b) compensate poor farmers for the reallocation of irrigation water to urban use
c) support cross-subsidies in favor of the poor, especially those which may have
projections and water supply and sewerage planning, e.g., ex ante and
sewerage projects;
17
3. Introduce institutional reforms to improve efficiency in water production and delivery;
facilitate intersectoral, inter-basin, and inter-LGU water transfers; and strengthen planning,
regulatory, and overall public sector water resource management capacity. For example:
* Where direct involvement of the public sector has led to inefficiencies in water
under a transparent and competitive bidding procedure. Clearly, the privatization of the
MCWD should be considered. However, realization of the full potential gains from
privatization over the long-term largely depends on the ability of the regulatory office to
monitor attainment of performance targets at the same time ensuring reasonable (not
monopolistic) rates of return for the private concessionaires. Therefore, there is an urgent
need to strengthen local capability for designing optimal contractual arrangements and
* The recent surge in unsolicited BOT proposals for the development of water
supply projects must be viewed with extreme caution. In fact, these proposals such as the
Mananga Phase II for Metro Cebu should have been solicited and chosen through the
usual competitive bidding procedure because these have been previously identified and
feasibility studies have already been undertaken. Since unsolicited BOT proposals as well
as BOT proposals solicited with haste are typically more costly, the public sector must be
more vigilant in ensuring competition and invest more resources for water supply project
evaluations.
* With the passage of the Local Government Code and the naturally limited supply
transfers of water resources will have to be developed. The lack of legal basis and
18
operational guidelines for effecting such water transfers has proven to be very costly in
the case of the on-going controversy over the operations of the MCWD wells in
Compostela.
integrated and holistic approach in addressing the inherently interrelated issues of water
supply planning and operation, demand management, pollution control, and watershed and
groundwater protection. Thus, the fragmented and relatively weak institutional structure
19
References
ADB. 1997. Water Utilities Data Book and the Pacific Region, Manila, Philippines.
Braadbaart, Okke and F. Braadbaart. 1997. “Policing the Urban Pumping Race: Industrial
Groundwater Overexploitation in Indonesia,” World Development, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp.
199-210.
Castro, Evelyn N. 1997. “When the Well Runs Dry: A Civil Initiative in Watershed Planning and
Management in the Philippine” unpublished paper, Eduardo Aboitiz Development Studies
Center, Cebu City.
Electrowatt Engineering Services, Ltd. 1991. “Cebu Water Supply Project Phase II. Volume
I and II. TA No. 1268 PHI, Asian Development Bank.
Expertelligence Development Corporation. 1996. “A Market Study for the Metropolitan Cebu
Water District (MCWD), Volume 2, August.
Haman, Z.B. 1991. “Evaluation of the Coastal Aquifer Performance and Possibilities for Increase
in MCWD Withdrawal for the Area in between Mananga River and Consolacion Well-
Field” Paper prepared for the MCWD, Cebu City.
Haman, Bruno Z. And M. M. Ebarvia. 1997. “Review of Brown and Root Feasibility Study:
Bohol-Cebu Water Supply Project. Unpublished paper DENR-IEMSD.
Jaffe, Adam, B., S. R. Peterson, P.R. Portney, and R.N. Stains. “Environmental Regulation and
the Competitiveness of US Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?”, Journal
of Economic Literature, Vol. 33, March 1995, pp. 132-163.
JICA 1994. “Cebu Integrated Area Development Master Plan Study (CIADMPS).
LWUA. 1997. “History and Development of the Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD)”,
unpublished paper, PMO, LWUA-MCWD-Cebu Consultants.
Walag, Fe. 1996. “Cebu’s Water Supply Situation”. Unpublished paper for CUSW Water
Resource Center
fn: cebtxt1.wpd
ccd/06-18-98
20
Table 1. Estimate of urban water consumption by source of supply, 1995 (thousand cum/d)
_____________________________________________________________________________
* Figure in parenthesis are percentage shares of MCWD or other sources to water use by
households or other users.
** Figures in brackets are percentage shares of households or others users to total water use.
Note: The total water use is derived based on a conservative assumption about size of water
demand for industrial, commercial, and other users. See PIDS1 estimate of water demand
in Table 3.
Table 2. Distribution of registered private wells in Metro Cebu, by
municipality, 1997.
_________________________________________________________
Number of
Municipality Wells Registrants
_________________________________________________________
Cebu City 26 22
Compostela 1 1
Consolacion 3 3
Cordova 0 0
Lapu-Lapu 3 3
Liloan 21 18
Mandaue 16 6
Talisay 81 75
Households
ELWATT 179.7 215.0 251.9 289.6 - -
JICA98a - - - - - -
JICA98a - - - - - -
Total
ELWATT 223.5 281.8 349.5 424.5 - -
Demand
ELWATT 223.5 281.8 349.5 424.5 - -
* Figures in brackets are supply and net D-S gap without the Lusaran Dam project.
Minimum
Water district charge Consumption bracket (cum)
(=
P/conn/) 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50
month)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Metro Manilaa
Manilab
Self-supplied
Deepwell 15.9 56.5 1370.8
Artesian well 2.4 0.0 1293.4
Water vendors
MCWD water
51 9.2 76.3 1189.0
61 1.1 59.8 1696.7
71 * 53.2 1200.0
81 * 106.4 750.0
91 * 66.5 4000.0
Deepwell
52 2.1 76.3 1189.0
62 - - -
72 - - -
82 * 132.9 1025.0
92 0 3.4 1100.0
Multi-Sources 21.6
_______________________________________________________________
Under P
=30,000 34.96 8.78
=30,000-39,999
P 30.59 4.07
=40,000-59,999
P 22.37 4.03
=60,000-99,999
P 24.68 3.22
=100,000-149,999
P 17.02 2.50
=150,000-199,999
P 17.50 1.84
=200,000-249,999
P 10.72 1.67
=250,000-499,999
P 10.50 0.82
=500,000-749,999
P 7.06 0.53
=750,000-999,999
P 8.67 0.34
Groundwater source No. of Pump HP Pump discharge Average pump availability Production capacity Performance rate (%)
Wellfields
Talamban wellfield 8 10-100 74 1,061 1,097 22.62 23.10 24,790 26,242 103 102 106
Consolacion wellfield 8 20-75 37 586 594 22.58 20.57 13,661 12,211 101 91 89
Tisa-Pardo wellfield 7 15-40 28 446 469 22.61 19.54 10,418 9,514 105 86 91
Mananga wellfield 4 20-60 40 412 396 22.60 23.56 10,222 9,297 96 104 91
Liloan wellfield 16 25-50 38 1,025 1,310 16.74 14.21 18,475 18,420 128 85 100
Sub total 43 10-100 40 3,530 3,866 20.42 18.78 77,566 75,684 110 92 98
Population growth
First 10 cum
Meter size (inches) (P/connection)
1 302.26 287.15
2 1,916.25 1819.65
3 3,447.15 3273.90
4 6,894.30 6548.85
6 10,334.10 9817.50
(P/cum)
11-20 cum 10.50 9.98